by Xanthippe 38 Replies latest jw friends
It's not so much a question of whether there is life in other parts of the universe, but whether they could or would ever encounter us. It seems more likely that any beings sufficiently sophisticated to be able to visit Earth would scarcely be interested.
And if they do, you'd better hope they're friendly.
The big bang has not at all been refuted. Forgive me but I think you are a little ...muddled up. I think you are refering to the recent discovery that the red shift is speeding up and not slowing down as expected, but this has been explained by the recent explinations concerning the universe expanding into dark energy. Have you read Dr Krauss?
I don't know what your age is but you sound like an oldschool scientist. They treat science like a religion and indiviuals such as Einstein, Newton, and Darwin are promoted to sainthood. Anyone who dares to disagree with them is banish from the community, literally. That's exactly why happened to Halton Arp when he started questioning the idea of an expanding universe based on his research. He literally had to leave the United States and continue his research in a different country. Anytime evidence surface that suggest a theory proposed by a former saint may been incorrect, new theories are created just as a way to save face, such as dark matter, dark energy, black holes, etc. I'm a new breed who have no emotional attachment to theories of the past and therefore aren't willing to except or defend longheld beliefs that have little evidence to back them up. And no I have not read anything from Dr. Krauss, but I'll look into it.
As for evidence for extraterrestrial life, I assume you know the universe is huge, I assume you know that atoms are formed in stars, I assume you know that in the right enviroment these atoms can form simple nucleic acids, the building blocks of life, for dna or rna from simply the enviroment around them (the miller experiment). I assume you agree that the further we dig down in the planet the further we go back in time and with that with NO exceptions, as we dig diwn the simpler the remains of lifeforms get. So we know the majority of the story right now despite only a hundred years or so of good science and only 20 years or so with computed science... Yet we have the science of abiogenesis, and it is exploring how we can get from acids to functioning unicellular life, despite being a new science we have learned much already. Being a chemistry major I am sure you know much of this already.
I know what can happen, may happen, should happen, could happen, but I know there is zero evidence to show that it has happened, and since I base all my beliefs on evidence, as far as I'm concerned it hasn't happened.
All of the above can take place anywhere in the universe, so evidence for ET life does exist in that there is an observable suggestion of its probability, i.e. Life on our planet. what law of physics, biology or chemistry do you know.of that prevents life evolving elsewhere too?
You assume the law of physics and chemistry is the same throughout the universe. Just like this planet has different conditions such as desert, jungle, forest, artic, tropic, etc. that's not sutible for all form of life, the universe could behave in the same way. (Not the best anology but I think you get the point.)
Why on earth would you conclude the alternative? That there is 100% no life outside of earth! A chemistry major making such an outstanding claim Is a shock to me.
While we both may share a deep interest in science, the fundamental difference between you and me is that your comfortable basing a certain amount of your beliefs on assumptions and popular theory. I understand that the odds of some form of bacteria, virus, of fungus being present on at least one of the billion other planets in the universe is pretty high, but that is just an opinon. I'm interested in evidence only, not opinons or feelings. When you start basing your theories on opinons and feelings rather than evidence, you end up with nonsense like dark matter, blackholes, wormholes, and gravitons.
What if they have been here and are responsible for religions Jeffro?
.....ok....it may be b.s. .....but I used to love stargate. So lets not dismiss it too much.... Shotgun going through the stargate !
snare&racket:
What if they have been here and are responsible for religions Jeffro?
There's much more reasonable anthropological explanations for the development of religious belief systems without resorting to alien intervention.
Have you been reading Chariots of the Gods?
I am 32 and fresh to science, I would drop a dodgy theory as quick as an itchy woman at a bar...
you are trying to make it personal And deviate from the issue, you said the big bang had been refuted. Site your paper and journal.....
Physics is not my science but I am in love with it, I devoured all the papers and peer reviews of those images (ESA and Planck) not one place saw it as evidence that the big bang had been refuted. It is a bit of an embarassment on your part, the telescopes mission was to photograph the radiation from the big bang, which it did. I really don't want to be unkind, but what other way is there to say what you said is just oxymoronic.... It dissporved the big bang by photographing the big bangs radiation? Again.... Source? Paper? Journal? Or just a misunderstanding?
Ok so laws of chemistry and physics, wow you shocked me here. This is science 101 and certainly chemistry 101. I assume you know the laws of chemistry are based on the laws of physics? Have you heard of the laws of thermodynamics? They shpuld have been chapter one in your chemistry book. Well the whole universe has to work on those laws. That is not my assumption this is the theory we base all science on. Have you not heard scientists say you cant break the laws of thermodynamics?
...Besides this, so what if there were regions of different physics and chemistry? You could have different forms of life! Besides we have discovered enough planets and solar systems with our laws of physics and chemistry in our universe as seen in the drake equation to even ignore this issue. It i still massively possible by the math of possible planets we do know are out there that work by our laws. (But in our universe we are confident that physics and chemistry are a constant) this question really suprised me btw, its really basic science, no offence.
As for evidence, you do appreciate what evidence is right? For example long before we saw an atom we had established they existed and even attempted tomanipulate them. the evidence of their existence by Rutherford in Manchester came long before their proof of existence. Likewise evidence such as a planet in the universe full of life that evolved (earth) IS evidence that contributes towards other life existing. The discovery of exoplanets is evidence towards life in the universe elsewhere existing. The survivial of organisms in space is evicence towards life existing in the universe. Bacteria that survive in the most inhospitible conditions on earth is evidence and is a leading field contributing to the search for ET life in the universe. A little green man in a cloth sack is not the "evidence" Alone.
Besides all of that, AGAIN for the last time nobody is saying THERE IS life out there, just that the evidence (see above) suggests it is probable.
As for you mentioning the variation of planets etc, you are thinking way too small. The universe has trillions of galaxies that have had billions of yesrs to play chemistry experiements with.... Who even knows what kind of life forms could be out there... Why bacterium or similar? Why cell based at all? Why carbon based? Science doesn't think in such restricted boxes, the possibilities are endless.... And the possibility is certainly not zero!
You say there is no evidence, there is! If you were watching the universe from the outside looking in and I said is there possibly life in this universe and you said "i dont know" and then you looked a little longer and saw earth .....then said "yes look there is life" if i then said is it possible there is life elsewhere that likewise arose in this universe .... how could you deny that the planet you have already found teaming with life was not evidence of it being possible elsewhere?
snare x (how old are you, what do you do,now for a living?)
Jeffro..... Well done for seeing the hidden stargate secret code, i have not read it but heard Its ideas as it inspired the stargate series. Plus I love trashy pseudo science too, its fun to hear!
OMG! Maybe Dawkins is really a Mormon. They believe in aliens too, in fact they're starting up their own planets when they're done here. lol
"I don't know what your age is but you sound like an oldschool scientist. They treat science like a religion and indiviuals such as Einstein, Newton, and Darwin are promoted to sainthood. Anyone who dares to disagree with them is banish from the community, literally. That's exactly why happened to Halton Arp"
That sounds very sci fi to me. That's what sci fi writers do, they take some current scientific understanding, say, 'what if?' and then let their imaginations have a heap of fun and make some cool stories. Good ones will make you think. I see Dawkins here doing the same thing and having a bit of fun. Letting his creativity run wild. Being inspired. That's what it looks like from a writer's perspective. And why not? Kids love imagination and it's good to see some original ideas.
Cosmological principle, homogeny, isotropy. That being said, when I was gorging on cosmology years ago there were enough (unproveable, of course) hypotheses that just because our own Hubble volume displays a topological flatness, and the recent Planck results have refined the flatness to (iirc) one in ten thousandths from the critical value, that doesn't mean it is impossible for our local Hubble volume to be a flatness in an otherwise topologically featured surface. As far as our depth of perception into our Hubble volume, ending at the CMB polarization, the cosmological principle holds. The angular scale of the baryon accoustic oscillations (~1.5Mpc iirc) have validated or backed up redshift findings, and both have been backed up by -???- calculations of baryogenesis total energy release as compared to Planck spectrum/intensity of CMB, as well as the lithium:helium:hydrogren:deuterium ratios to be found in the ISM and IGM, i.e., virgin gas from the HYPOTHETICAL big bang that has not had its metalicity increased/altered by stellar cycling.
As for life: The universe has made alcohol all on its own.
